w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Md. Zahir Shah v/s The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Home) & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- R J SHAH AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45202MH1957PLC010986

Company & Directors' Information:- SHAH INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1960PTC024535

Company & Directors' Information:- B. B. SHAH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117RJ1984PTC002922

Company & Directors' Information:- D M SHAH & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29244WB1988PTC045183

Company & Directors' Information:- C. M. SHAH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1971PTC015107

Company & Directors' Information:- T M SHAH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U10101UP1966PTC003139

Company & Directors' Information:- S B SHAH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51496DL1991PTC045040

Company & Directors' Information:- H B SHAH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100MH1947PTC005536

Company & Directors' Information:- M M SHAH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311MH1962PTC012293

Company & Directors' Information:- MD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC306314

Company & Directors' Information:- D J SHAH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC030169

Company & Directors' Information:- MD R INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL1999PTC097812

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SHAH LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U15421WB2000PLC007659

Company & Directors' Information:- A H SHAH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51311MH1949PTC007019

Company & Directors' Information:- SHAH AND SHAH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U33112WB1980PTC032838

Company & Directors' Information:- A D SHAH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH1972PTC015715

Company & Directors' Information:- B. SHAH AND COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1952PLC008789

    WP (C) No. 721 of 2016

    Decided On, 17 March 2021

    At, High Court of Manipur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

    For the Petitioner: Anjan Sahu, Advocate. For the Respondents: H. Debendra, GA, I. Denning, Advocate.



Judgment Text

CAV Order:1. Since the Hon’ble Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.Kotiswar Singh, the then Acting Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh, vide judgment dated 16.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016, expressed differing views, the matter has been placed before me.2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned Recruitment Rules in respect of the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and also impugned advertisement in respect of the said post, as the same violate the well established principle of law and to direct the respondents to initiate the process for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant after the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) is incorporated in the essential qualifications and to exclude other unrelated subjects from the rules such as Chemistry/Bio-chemistry etc. and further amend the rules in such a way so as to include other subjects as well in the relevant recruitment rules.3. The writ petition was earlier listed before the Division Bench comprising the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. justice Kh. Nobin Singh. By the judgment dated 6.11.2017, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin, dismissed the writ petition and the operative portion of the judgment reads thus:“6. As has been stated here-in-above in the preceding para, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul case (supra) has been relied by upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The question raised in that case was as to whether experience in Epigraphy may be considered to be “field experience in Archaeology” or not. The appellant therein was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition which was allowed by the High Court and therefore, he preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a special leave. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, has held that the statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision. It has also been held that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. This decision will not help the petitioner at all but rather, the State Government. Considering the materials on record, it can safely be held that there is nothing wrong in the Recruitment Rules, 2015. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.7. For the reasons stated here-in-above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.”4. By separate judgment, the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice allowed the writ petition holding as under:“24. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid new recruitment rules for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) notified in 2015 suffers from the vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness and also non application of mind in omitting M.Sc. (Toxicology) a subject which is directly related to the post as an essential qualification when other subjects not directly related to the post have been included and also not by insisting that knowledge of Toxicology as mandatory for those who possess M.Sc. in Chemistry/Biology/Forensic science with Chemistry in Bachelor degree for appointment for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology).25. The reason assigned by the State respondents that the course in M.Sc. in Toxicology is a relatively new subject and not widely prevalent and that it is also not an essential qualification in many other institutions seems to be frivolous and irrelevant if the other new subject of Biochemistry has been included. The justification of the State respondents in omitting the qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology is not based on any reason that it is not relevant to the post. Thus, if the authorities have omitted directly relevant subjects while considering not directly relevant subjects for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), such an action of the authorities will be vitiated.Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, though this Court rejects the plea of the petitioner that the educational qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) was one of the essential qualifications in the old recruitment rules of 1999 for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), this Court holds that the new recruitment rules of 2015 for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) suffer from vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and are accordingly, set aside.The respondent authorities are, consequently directed to reconsider the appropriateness of the education qualifications already prescribed by considering the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of the education qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology as one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) with suitable conditions as the authorities may deem fit. 26. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is allowed.”5. The petitioner, who is a member of the minority community, studied Matriculation, thereafter Higher Secondary Examination, Bachelor of Science and completed his M.Sc. in Toxicology. The Government of Manipur, vide notification dated 23.10.2015, published the Recruitment Rules for the post of Scientific Assistants (Chemistry), (Biology), (Ballistics), (Toxicology), (Documents), (Mobile Forensic Unit) and (Photography).6. According to the petitioner, though the Recruitment Rules, 2015 for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) is included in the said Recruitment Rules, the qualification required for the said post does not include M.Sc. (Toxicology). Thus, the candidates, including the petitioner who have undergone courses for Toxicology, are debarred from applying for the said post.7. The petitioner contends that in other States, for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), M.Sc. Toxicology is an essential qualification. The said rule has been framed in such a way so that the near and dear ones of the authorities concerned can be included and other eligible candidates such as the petitioner can be excluded. It is also contended that there are also various other subjects which are required to be deleted from the rules, as they are not relevant with the said subject.8. According to the respondent State the Forensic Science (Toxicology) is a branch of Chemical Science for which a strong foundation of Chemistry is required. A Forensic Toxicologist has to perform scientific tests on bodily fluids and tissue samples to identify any drugs or chemicals present in the body. On the other hand, M.Sc. in Toxicology as a subject being opened recently in only few institutions and universities is not an essential qualification of scientific staff of most of the Forensic Science Laboratories, including those of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Manipur, Odisha, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Tripura etc. and CFSL (both DFSS & CBI). Therefore, M.Sc. in Forensic Science (Special Subject, Toxicology) prescribed as a qualification in the Recruitment Rules, 1999 has been replaced by M.Sc. in Forensic Science (Chemistry in Bachelor’s Degree) in respect of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) in the Recruitment Rules, 2015. M.Sc. in Toxicology has never been a qualification in any of the Recruitment Rules of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), Forensic Laboratory, Manipur.9. It is stated that in the Recruitment Rules, 2015, M.Sc. (Toxicology) is not included as one of the essential qualifications. There are institutions in India like the LNJN National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to train Forensic Scientist, where M.Sc. (Toxicology) is not one of the essential qualifications of Senior Scientific Assistant (Toxicology). Toxicology Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Manipur is a section where specialists in Forensic Toxicology have to work and, therefore, it may not be necessary to include M.Sc. in Toxicology as one of the essential qualifications in the 2015 recruitment rules.10. The respondent MPSC filed affidavit stating that the proposal for framing the Recruitment Rules, 2015 was furnished by the State Government and the MPSC after examining the same, found it to be appropriate and, therefore, the MPSC gave its concurrence, and there was no conspiracy as alleged by the petitioner.11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the persons possessing M.Sc. in the subjects Chemistry, Bio-chemistry, Forensic Science without any reference to specialisation or : knowledge in Toxicology have been made eligible for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and the same is unreasonable and arbitrary and thus, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.12. The learned counsel further submitted that there are other institutions where the academic qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology has been made as an essential qualification for similar posts as in Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad, where Master in Toxicology is one of the recognised essential qualifications for appointment to similar post.13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that M.Sc. (Toxicology) has been recently opened only in seven institutions and it is not widely prevalent and there is no other Forensic Science Laboratory in other States where it is the essential qualification. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that Forensic Toxicology is a branch of Chemical Sciences and a strong foundation of Chemistry is required to become a specialist in Forensic Toxicology and that Forensic Toxicologist has to perform Scientific tests on bodily fluids and tissue samples to identify any drug or chemical present in the body.14. The learned counsel then submitted that Bio-chemistry is also a new subject having application in Forensic Toxicology opened in most of the Indian Universities and many institutions and that M.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is included as one of the essential qualifications in many Forensic Science Laboratories in India, including those of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, CFSL DFSS etc., where Toxicology examination is required. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that there is no Forensic Science Laboratory in the country which does not have chemistry as one of the essential qualifications for the post in Toxicology Division. The learned counsel for the State also relied upon the following decisions in support of his arguments:(i) P. Murugesan v. State of T.N., (1993) 2 SCC 340(ii) State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709(iii) P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 63215. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.16. The issue involved in the writ petition is the validity of the Recruitment Rules published on 23.10.2015 for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) in the Department of Home (Forensic Science Laboratory), Manipur and also to quash the advertisement dated 29.8.2016 issued by the respondent MPSC. Prior to the Recruitment Rules, 2015, there was another set of Recruitment Rules for the post of Scientific Assistant (Chemistry/Biology/Ballistic/ Toxicology/Documents of the Forensic Science Laboratory in the Police Department in Manipur, which were published on 31.5.1999. As per the Recruitment Rules, 1999, the essential qualification for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) has been prescribed as M.Sc. in Chemistry/Biology/Life Science (Zoology stream) /Physics/Forensic Science (Social subject, Toxicology) from a recognised University.17. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh held that M.Sc. in Toxicology is not one of the essential qualifications nor has it been made an essential qualification in the subsequent Recruitment Rules, 2015 and, therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that M.Sc. in Toxicology has been excluded from being an essential qualification in the Recruitment Rules, 2015. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh is of the further view that the question of exclusion or deletion of M.Sc. in Toxicology from being a qualification in the Recruitment Rules, 2015 will not arise at all, when it was not prescribed as a qualification in the Recruitment Rules, 1999 itself. It is a matter of policy decision and it is within the purview of the State Government to take policy decisions which warrant no interference by the Court except in cases where the vested right of a person has been infringed by it. It is also the view of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh that to prescribe an eligibility criteria or a qualification in the Recruitment Rules for appointment to a particular post in the State is the job of an expert and the Court not being an expert body, cannot substitute its opinion to that of the expert body.18. However, the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice held that under the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), if one possesses M.Sc. degree in Chemistry or Biochemistry or Forensic Science, even if one has not studied the subject of Toxicology, he will still be eligible for appointment as a Scientific Assistant (Toxicology). Further, if the rule making authority totally ignores a directly relevant subject and includes a not directly relevant subject, such Recruitment Rules may suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, unreasonableness and arbitrariness.19. After extracting the relevant portions of Recruitment Rules, 1999 and Recruitment Rules, 2015, the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice held that under the new Recruitment Rules, 2015, the rule making authorities have not insisted upon the knowledge in Toxicology as there is no such reference/mention of such requirement under the Recruitment Rules, 2015.20. The case of the petitioner is that he had no knowledge of the publication of the Recruitment Rules, 2015 till the advertisement was issued as the same was not published widely through local media. Further case of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile the MPSC issued an advertisement dated 29.8.2016, whereby 12 posts of Scientific Assistant of various subjects, including 2 posts of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), was published, for appointment from open market. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had been studying M.Sc. (Toxicology) at the Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi with the hope and trust that after possessing the said qualification, he will get suitable job commensurate with his educational qualification. However, the respondent authorities deliberately deleted the subject of M.Sc. (Toxicology) from the essential qualifications for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) though the said qualification is the most essential qualification directly related with the post in. question. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that on account of the publication of the Recruitment Rules, 2015 and also issuance of the advertisement, the legitimate expectation as well as the right of the petitioner for applying to the relevant post in the said recruitment drive has been deprived.21. However, the respondent State contended that M.Sc. (Toxicology) has never been one of the essential qualifications in the Recruitment Rules of Scientific Assistant of Forensic Science Laboratory, Manipur. Hence, the question of deletion of M.Sc. (Toxicology) resulting in deprivation of petitioner’s chance to apply for the posts of Scientific Assistant does not arise. It is the petitioner’s assumption that there was M.Sc. (Toxicology) as one of the essential qualifications in the Recruitment Rules of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology). Therefore, there is no ground for setting aside the Recruitment Rules, 2015 of Scientific Assistants, including the Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and the related advertisement published by the respondent MPSC.22. The petitioner also demonstrated the advertisement issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (HRD), Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), where the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) is also one of the qualifications. Thus, it is clear that the qualification i.e., M.Sc. (Toxicology) is directly related to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), but the subject itself is excluded from the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) in the impugned Recruitment Rules, 2015.23. In P.Murugesan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:“16. On the basis of the above observations it is argued that once the diploma holders are also held eligible for promotion, it is not permissible for the rule-making authority to make any distinction between graduates and diploma holders. We cannot agree. As a matter of fact, this Court in Shujat Ali case [(1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454 : (1975) 1 SCR 449] upheld the validity of the Andhra Pradesh rule which made a distinction between the graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors in the matter of promotion to the higher categories on the ground that in the erstwhile States of Andhra and Hyderabad, graduate supervisors were always treated as distinct and separate from the non-graduate supervisors, their pay scales were different; they were never really integrated into one class and graduate supervisors were called Junior Engineers. Accordingly, it was held that reducing the chances of promotion of non-graduate supervisors vis-a-vis graduate supervisors was not discriminatory. (As we shall presently point out, the factual situation in Madras Corporation Engineering service is similar.) The observations quoted above cannot be read in isolation nor can they be read as running counter to the ratio of T.N. Khosa [ (1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 49: (1974) 1 SCR 771] Both decisions were rendered by Constitution Benches. In any event, the facts and circumstances of the case before us are akin to those in Shujat Ali [(1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454: (1975) 1 SCR 449] Secondly, as explained hereinbefore there would be no justification in principle for holding that the rule-making authority has only two options namely either to bar the diploma holders altogether from promotion or to allow them equal opportunity with the graduate engineers in the matter of promotion. It must be remembered that the power of rule-making under the proviso to Article 309 has been held to be legislative in character (Vadera [B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1968) 3 SCR 575 : 1969 Lab IC 100] ). If so, the test is whether such a restrictive view is permissible vis-a-vis a legislature. If not, it is equally impermissible in the case of the rule-making authority under the proviso to Article 309. The only test that such a rule has to pass is that of Articles 14 and 16 — and to that aspect we may turn now.”24. In McDowell & Co. (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:“43. Shri Rohinton Nariman submitted that inasmuch as a large number of persons falling within the exempted categories are allowed to consume intoxicating liquors in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the total prohibition of manufacture and production of these liquors is ‘arbitrary’ and the amending Act is liable to be struck down on this ground alone. Support for this proposition is sought from a judgment of this Court in State of T.N. v. Ananthi Ammal [(1995) 1 SCC 519]. Before, however, we refer to the holding in the said decision, it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of certain basic propositions in this behalf. In the United Kingdom, Parliament is supreme. There are no limitations upon the power of Parliament. No court in the United Kingdom can strike down an Act made by Parliament on any ground. As against this, the United States of America has a Federal Constitution where the power of the Congress and the State Legislatures to make laws is limited in two ways, viz., the division of legislative powers between the States and the Federal Government and the fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) incorporated in the Constitution. In India, the position is similar to the United States of America. The power of Parliament or for that matter, the State Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground. We do not wish to enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness — concepts inspired by the decisions of United States Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these concepts and in particular the concept of substantive due process have proved to be of unending controversy, the latest thinking tending towards a severe curtailment of this ground (substantive due process). The main criticism against the ground of substantive due process being that it seeks to set up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the legislature in enacting the particular piece of legislation. It is enough for us to say that by whatever name it is characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In other words, say, if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary [ An expression used widely and rather indiscriminately – an expression of inherently imprecise import. The extensive use of this expression in India reminds one of what Frankfurter, J. said in Hattie Mae Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 87 L Ed 610 : 318 US 54 (1943). “The phrase begins life as a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas”, said the learned Judge.] or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. In this connection, it should be remembered that even in the case of administrative action, the scope of judicial review is limited to three grounds, viz., (i) unreasonableness, which can more appropriately be called irrationality, (ii) illegality and (iii) procedural impropriety (see Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [1985 AC 374: (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174] which decision has been accepted by this Court as well). The applicability of doctrine of proportionality even in administrative law sphere is yet a debatable issue. (See the opinions of Lords Lowry and Ackner in R. v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt., ex p Brind [1991 AC 696 “ (1991) 1 All ER 720] AC at 766-67 and 762.) It would be rather odd if an enactment were to be struck down by applying the said principle when its applicability even in administrative law sphere is not fully and finally settled. It is one thing to say that a restriction imposed upon a fundamental right can be struck down if it is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable and quite another thing to say that the court can strike down enactment if it thinks it unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted. Now, coming to the decision in Ananthi Ammal [(1995) 1 SCC 519], we are of the opinion that it does not lay down a different proposition. It was an appeal from the decision of the Madras High Court striking down the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution. On a review of the provisions of the Act, this Court found that it provided a procedure which was substantially unfair to the owners of the land as compared to the procedure prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, insofar as Section 11 of the Act provided for payment of compensation in instalments if it exceeded rupees two thousand. After noticing the several features of the Act including the one mentioned above, this Court observed: (SCC p. 526, para 7)“7. When a statute is impugned under Article 14 what the court has to decide is whether the statute is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it must be struck down. At best, a statute upon a similar subject which derives its authority from another source can be referred to, if its provisions have been held to be reasonable or have stood the test of time, only for the purpose of indicating what may be said to be reasonable in the context. We proceed to examine the provisions of the said Act upon this basis.”25. In P.U. Joshi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:“10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.”There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid in the above said decisions. However, on the facts of the present case, this Court proposes to deal with the merits of the matter.26. Admittedly, when the Recruitment Rules, 1999 specifically required possession of some academic qualification in Toxicology for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), there is no such mention of the requirement of having undertaken any subject or course in the subject of Toxicology under the Recruitment Rules, 2015. As rightly held by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, under the Recruitment Rules, 2015, nobody can be disqualified for applying to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) even if he has not done the special subject of Toxicology as this specific requirement has been omitted under the Recruitment Rules, 2015.27. It is apposite to note that no material has been produced by the respondent State to show that the rule making authority while making Recruitment Rules, 2015 have considered the issue about the possession of knowledge in the subject of Toxicology. Admittedly, there is no reference to the requirement of knowledge of Toxicology under the Recruitment Rules,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

2015 when the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) has to specifically deal with the cases Involving Toxicology. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show why the requirement of knowledge in the subject of Toxicology has been omitted/dispensed with in the Recruitment Rules, 2015.28. There is no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that the course of M.Sc. (Toxicology) is a relatively new subject and not widely prevalent and hence not included as one of the essential qualifications. As rightly held by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, why a person possessing educational qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology which is directly related with the subject of Toxicology has been omitted in the Recruitment Rules, 2015.29. In fact, the Hon’ble the then Acting Chief Justice, after analysing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the files and materials produced by the parties, has allowed the writ petition. As rightly held by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, the reason for omitting the qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology is not based on any material and if the authorities omitted directly the relevant subject while considering not directly relevant subjects for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), such an action of the authorities will be vitiated. This Court, subscribes to the view taken by the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice that the Recruitment Rules, 2015 vitiate insofar as recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) is concerned.30. I am of the view that there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment to a particular post of the State Government as well as the Central Government are the national wealth and each and every citizen has the right to compete for the said posts unless he/she is not qualified for the said post.31. In the instant case, while publishing the impugned Recruitment Rules, 2015, the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) was excluded for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), the post is directly related with the said subject and the right of the petitioner along with other persons who possessed the said qualification has been deprived of. In such view of the matter, the impugned 2015 recruitment rules insofar as the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and the impugned advertisement in relation thereto are liable to be set aside.32. In the result,(1) The writ petition is allowed and the recruitment rules, 2015 in respect of the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and the consequent impugned advertisement in respect of the said post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) are quashed.(2) The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the appropriateness of the educational qualifications already prescribed by considering the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of the education qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology as one of the’ essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Technology) with suitable conditions as the authorities may deem fit.(3) No costs.33. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.
O R